On the contrary- estate stated that their intention was to enforce dismounting though a ‘step through stile’ which would clearly affect users of adapted bikes etc. Riders have used this bridge for decades without the need to dismount, the estate has even used riders crossing the bridge without dismounting in their own promo material
Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm
Re: Cavendish Bridge, Bolton Abbey
Re: Cavendish Bridge, Bolton Abbey
Yes, blatant discrimination and potentially breach of the DDA. Notice a previous post referred to the "socialist element" in disparaging terms in this discussion. Quel surprise. But see how far that attitude gets you with walkers. Cyclists shouldn't be so snooty. It's those pesky Labour people that introduced access to the countryside originally, not to mention later things such as the Equalities Act, that all people who want to get out in the country benefit from.Zulu Eleven wrote: ↑7 May 2021, 9:27amOn the contrary- estate stated that their intention was to enforce dismounting though a ‘step through stile’ which would clearly affect users of adapted bikes etc. Riders have used this bridge for decades without the need to dismount, the estate has even used riders crossing the bridge without dismounting in their own promo material
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
I've written two letters to John Snow, one as the then CTC president, and one as a Channel 4 news presenter. From an old thread:-
In my letter, I said they were laughing at themselves. The mistake of grammar was Quel surprise.Incidentally, a few years ago I also wrote to John Snow but nothing to do with cycling. (A caption in French to a news item poking fun at the French president contained a childish mistake of grammar. I pointed out that since even refugees on the far side of the planet generally manage to answer in English the most incongruous of questions from news reporters, then Channel Four ought to be able to get it right.)
I got an immediate handwritten reply from him saying that he had investigated, had hoped there was a good reason but that it had been a cock-up, that he was ashamed and hoped they would do better in future.
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
This has been discussed before in similar contexts
Either this a permissive path, in which case you're sort of an unwanted but tolerated excretum, or it's a public footpath which in fact historically was often used for horses etc., in which case there's a process of proving this to get it upgraded.
If it's purporting merely to be a permissive path then the goal would be to show in fact that it had become a public way in the past.
Either this a permissive path, in which case you're sort of an unwanted but tolerated excretum, or it's a public footpath which in fact historically was often used for horses etc., in which case there's a process of proving this to get it upgraded.
If it's purporting merely to be a permissive path then the goal would be to show in fact that it had become a public way in the past.
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
I thought that the point cUK and others are making is that the charitable settlement which owns most of this neck of the woods benefits from tax concessions for allowing more general public access than would be the duty of a private landowner. As an aside, it's some years since I bothered with the Cav Pav: I stopped going when they tarted it up (Late 1990s?) IIRC, there's a plaque on this bridge recording that it was rebuilt (as a training exercise?) by an Army unit under the command of the then Marquis of Hartington. AFAIK, he's now the Duke.
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
thirdcrank wrote: ↑13 May 2021, 11:08am I thought that the point cUK and others are making is that the charitable settlement which owns most of this neck of the woods benefits from tax concessions for allowing more general public access than would be the duty of a private landowner.
That’s right, the HMRC expects them to provide ‘reasonable access’ to the public in return for the exemption. The estate interprets that as a series of permissive paths on foot only, some of those permissive paths are even over CROW access where a statutory right of access anyway, thus it’s rather questionable what the public benefit is, and whether that really amounts to ‘reasonable access’
The wider questions it opens up regards other estates who get taxable benefits for access that only rewards walkers are obvious
There’s also a complex point here regards disabled access, as there does not appear to be a clear mechanism to ensure existing agreements predating the equality act offer proper disabled access. A complex question is whether, since the agreement is made by HMRC, whether the full public sector equality duty is engaged, rather than the lesser equality act duty that would apply to a private estate.
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
Hmm it does seem that the government is at fault here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t-plan.pdf
It doesn't ever seen to have been envisaged that managing access would include allowing cyclists on it.
This is a problem in that much access is more attractive to cyclists than walkers, and given that it's often intended to be permissive by design e.g. to allow them to shut down access for shooting events etc. then the facility to cyclists should have been discussed from the beginning
It seems extremely unlikely that Bolton Abbey broke their Heritage Management Plan, which is entirely as designed i.e. with no thought or regard to cyclists
The fault seems to be with Natural England/the government in never envisaging access for cyclists in any of these processes.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t-plan.pdf
It doesn't ever seen to have been envisaged that managing access would include allowing cyclists on it.
This is a problem in that much access is more attractive to cyclists than walkers, and given that it's often intended to be permissive by design e.g. to allow them to shut down access for shooting events etc. then the facility to cyclists should have been discussed from the beginning
It seems extremely unlikely that Bolton Abbey broke their Heritage Management Plan, which is entirely as designed i.e. with no thought or regard to cyclists
The fault seems to be with Natural England/the government in never envisaging access for cyclists in any of these processes.
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
The daft thing here is that unless something has changed, the only reason I can see for cyclists using this bridge is to get to the Cav Pav. Once upon a time, that catered for all tastes in that you could buy tea/ coffee and snacks to eat in or outside on the picnic tables, or have a slap up quality meal inside up the other end. When they tarted it up, it became all waiter service including the tea / coffee outside. No longer what I'd think of a cyclists' tea spot. I suppose it's a way through between the B6160 and Storiths Lane but I'm not sure that serves much purpose.
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
An extract my journal of a three-week ramble (on a tight budge) around The Dales in 1997:
At Cavendish Pavilion near the southern entry point to the Nature Walk the Duke extracted his toll for ‘free’ access to the Strid Woods: there was, of course, a charge for parking, and the cafeteria was the only place for miles that sold food. Since they specialized in serving walkers, it was perhaps appropriate that the fare was pedestrian, and from the look of the prices I fully expected the cashier to brandish a muzzle-loading pistol at me and bark out, “Stand and deliver!”
We ate a light supper.
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
The Cav Pav is much more strategically placed for walkers, whether they are on the Dales Way, or just parking here and walking on to the Strid etc. Memory vague here but I presume what I've referred to as the tarting up must have been before 1997. It used to be quite basic in furnishings so there was no problem with things like mucky boots, wet anoraks and rucksacks, but the grub was suitable for most tastes. I think the tarting up was to ensure it made as much money as possible. As I think I've posted, we stopped going so it may have changed again since then.Mistik-ka wrote: ↑13 May 2021, 5:39pm An extract my journal of a three-week ramble (on a tight budge) around The Dales in 1997:
At Cavendish Pavilion near the southern entry point to the Nature Walk the Duke extracted his toll for ‘free’ access to the Strid Woods: there was, of course, a charge for parking, and the cafeteria was the only place for miles that sold food. Since they specialized in serving walkers, it was perhaps appropriate that the fare was pedestrian, and from the look of the prices I fully expected the cashier to brandish a muzzle-loading pistol at me and bark out, “Stand and deliver!”
We ate a light supper.
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
There are wonderful Landrover tracks all over the Devonshire Estate grouse moors.
Cyclists are barred from using these tracks by the simple device of making the tracks "permissive footpaths".
One such track runs from the village of Thruscross (now submerged beneath the reservoir) to the Cavendish Pavilion, and its obvious to me that this was a right of way before millions of such rights of way were extinguished by the landowners from about the 1930's onwards, as walking declined as the only means of transport available to the working class.
There is only one significant bridlepath on the Devonshire Estate, across Barden Moor, and that is comic; all along its length, any track to the right or left has a "no cycling" sign....in effect, the track is fenced off by no cycling signs.
This is not, yet, a public disgrace, but it should be.
The Estate gains tax relief by "giving public access" ....except the only access is what they are forced by law to give...access on foot to "access land"
Cyclists are barred from using these tracks by the simple device of making the tracks "permissive footpaths".
One such track runs from the village of Thruscross (now submerged beneath the reservoir) to the Cavendish Pavilion, and its obvious to me that this was a right of way before millions of such rights of way were extinguished by the landowners from about the 1930's onwards, as walking declined as the only means of transport available to the working class.
There is only one significant bridlepath on the Devonshire Estate, across Barden Moor, and that is comic; all along its length, any track to the right or left has a "no cycling" sign....in effect, the track is fenced off by no cycling signs.
This is not, yet, a public disgrace, but it should be.
The Estate gains tax relief by "giving public access" ....except the only access is what they are forced by law to give...access on foot to "access land"
Bike fitting D.I.Y. .....http://wheel-easy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bike-set-up-2017a.pdf
Tracks in the Dales etc...http://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/collections/
Tracks in the Dales etc...http://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/collections/
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
Although I've answered this after a fashion higher up, 531colin's post goes some way to give more explanation. Around here, if you wanted a test case involving rights of way over privately-owned large areas of land this is it. And I fancy you'd be up against sufficient legal big guns to end up with a definitive case - Supreme Court if the lower courts came out in favour of cycling on footpaths being okBen@Forest wrote: ↑3 Sep 2020, 5:16pmWhy is it a good test case?thirdcrank wrote:If there's anywhere in the realm where you might orchestrate a test case on trespassing etc., I'd nominate the Bolton Abbey Estate and this bit in particular.
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
It might be the right place not just for a test case of the current law, but as a starting point for getting the law changed. It might also be just the right time. The impact on many people of the pandemic and lockdowns over the last year may result in the public being more receptive to a campaign to increase countryside access.thirdcrank wrote: ↑15 May 2021, 9:43am Although I've answered this after a fashion higher up, 531colin's post goes some way to give more explanation. Around here, if you wanted a test case involving rights of way over privately-owned large areas of land this is it. And I fancy you'd be up against sufficient legal big guns to end up with a definitive case - Supreme Court if the lower courts came out in favour of cycling on footpaths being ok
A cycling equivalent of the Kinder Scout trespass might be extremely effective now, especially if it was done in a way that was likely to attract media attention and win the support of a lot of public. A problem for a lot of modern protests groups is that very often their appearance and actions are somewhat offputting to many ordinary people, even though they might agree with the aims of the protest. As a result a lot of potential public support is lost by those groups (e.g. Extinction Rebellion, the Colston statue protestors etc.).
Imagine a mass trespass of the Duke of Devonshire's landrover tracks, not by people on bikes who look like those in the CUK article:
![Image](https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/styles/colorbox_gallery/public/media-skyfish/328081/BoltonAbbeyAlistair%2BBenKimball.jpg?itok=cM1d2c5h×tamp=1620914177)
but instead by people who look more like this:
![Image](https://www.retrobike.co.uk/data/attachments/306/306707-fc4248593e9a3373c1367160774b83d0.jpg)
A mass trespass by bunch of elderly people on bikes (the older the better), not wearing full lycra racing cycling kit, could get a lot of attention from the media and win public support for better access to the countryside for cyclists and others.
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Bolton Abbey Cavendish private bridge closed
Of course, a test case might well clarify that cyclists' rights of way were wider than is sometimes assumed. We have had a couple of previous threads about this, particularly iirc whether a cyclist wheeling a bike was ok. (On a footpath, not a footway in this context.) In many parts of the country you might take a bike on a footpath and not have hope of triggering a test case. I'm saying that whenever this has been discussed in the past, this vast estate has immediately sprung to mind. I could be wrong and they may be hoping that all the signs and notices are adequate, but security people were filmed on the bridge stopping cyclists using the Cav Pav bridge, which prompted me to post.